Morally problematic associative advertising

In 1991, Richard Overton sued the company that owns Bud Light for misleading advertisements (Mich. Ct. App., 1994). In the advertisements, Bud Light was “shown to be the source of fantasies coming to life, involving otherwise impossible manifestations of scenic tropical settings, beautiful women and men engaged in endless and unrestricted merriment” (p. 1). Overton argued the advertisements were deceptive because “it falsely suggests that Bud Light was the source of fantasies come to life” (p. 1). The case was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that puffery does not count as fraud. John Waide, in his essay, “The Making of Self and World in Advertising” (1987), argues that associative advertising is morally problematic because it influences customers to find personal fulfilment in market goods, and it requires advertisers to ignore their sense of compassion for their customers. Although it didn’t rise to the level of actionable fraud, I argue that the Bud Light advertisements are morally problematic because they influence viewers to look to alcohol for personal fulfilment and because the advertisers knowingly targeted a vulnerable demographic.

The creators of the advertisement intend to make their viewers think of Bud Light as fun and socially fulfilling. To do this, they associate the alcoholic beverage with tropical settings, a talking dog, and beautiful women. In one advertisement, two conventionally attractive women in swimwear walk towards the camera remarking “check him out” and “what a hunk”, followed by a male body-builder pointing and exclaiming “get a load of him!”. Then it shows a dog dressed in tropical attire and sunglasses lounging next to a cooler full of Bud Light as the commercial jingle plays, beginning with the lyrics “Well he’s a super party animal” (BetterBrandsSC, 2012). It’s clear which desires the advertisers are appealing to: attention from women, admiration from men, relaxation, and being the center of the party. These desires are commonly found in young men. Rather than promoting Bud Light’s taste or other qualities, the advertisers were trying to increase the commercial’s appeal to younger audiences by making beer fun. This way, viewers will try to meet their needs for fun and social fulfillment with beer.

The advertisers are targeting a demographic that is vulnerable to alcohol abuse, despite knowing the harm that alcohol can cause. The most obvious sign that the commercial targeted a young audience was the inclusion of its animal mascot, Spuds MacKenzie. This decision was criticized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who both alleged that “the beer’s ads were effectively pitching to children” (S.D.N.Y., 2017, p. 5). Overton’s own account agrees with this, as the initial spark for his lawsuit was seeing his children being captivated by the commercial’s talking dog (Time Inc., 2009, p. 1). The advertisers were aware of the danger of alcohol to young people. The court’s ruling found that “Our Supreme Court has long recognized that the dangers inherent in alcohol consumption are well known to the public” (Mich. Ct. App., 1994, p. 1). As the dangers of alcohol consumption have been public knowledge for so long, we can be sure the advertisers were aware of them when they created the ad. As Waide (1987) would argue, the advertisers have set aside their sense of compassion and moral responsibility to the young people in society.

In this short essay, I have applied Waide’s arguments about associative advertising to an alcohol commercial that targets young people. Although I find Waide’s arguments compelling, I am not suggesting that the legal ruling was wrong or that any laws should be changed. That is a much larger topic and is beyond the scope of this essay. When asked about the lawsuit in a 2007 interview, Overton, who doesn’t drink, clarified that his kids were the motivation behind the lawsuit. Overton explained, “I looked at them, and I thought, ‘This isn’t right’. Here are my kids being drawn to part of the culture of alcohol because of this advertising. That’s when I figured something needed to be done” (Time Inc., 2009, p. 1). Overton’s experience is a perfect example of Waide’s philosophical arguments seen in real life.